Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 3 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

Edit: The legal status table here is now well out of date and no longer fit for purpose given the broadness of legislation that has been passed in recent months. This thread will soon be updated with more comprehensive coverage of cannabinoid legal status in the US.

Post Quality Evaluations:

incredible! fantastic (and important) work!

Tremendous work. Great resource. Thanks for putting all of this together.

an awesome overview of US cannabinoid legality

A wonderful resource for the forum and well presented. Great job!

This was just what I've been looking for! Excellent compilation.

Great information! Thank you for doing this!

Nice work with the chart and the map. Informative!

Awesome job! Great comprhensive overview!

Nice job compiling all of this! I really wish I was able to give you more points.

Very helpful resource, thank you.

great, great post with not only accurate and sourced information but sharing the sources to be read as well. good post.

Extremely well written and received. Thank you for this amazing and intuitive post!

Please Try and keep this thread as clean as possible: discuss issues related to specific cannabinoids/bans in JWH-x bans, direct link to State Bills , The drug-info page for the specific cannabinoid, or threads in the cannabinoid or news forums related to specific bans.

how did swim come to the conclusion that jwh 081 is still legal in ms? after reading the law it just bans synthetic marijuana. where does it state in the law that jwh 018, 250, 073 are illegal an o81 isnt? from what i have read of the mississippi law it just says synthetic mary jane.

As I recall mississippi was probably the hardest state of the 50 to verify information for. This is because their electronic records of bills (even passed ones) are very slowly updated and the bill probably won't be visible on the legislature's site for some months.

I managed to dig up a version of SB2004 elsewhere (as attached), which specifically lists the controlled substances in the table above. Note that HU-210 is also federally scheduled. JWH-081 was not listed in this document, but there is also the possibility that this may not have been the final version of the bill. I'd assume this this version was sent to the governor that it is unlikely to have changed. However if anyone in mississippi can provide proof either way that would be helpful.

In any case the wording of the law is not so vague as to control synthetic marijuana as has been widely reported in the press. Specific named compounds are controlled by SB2004, and in this version at least JWH-081 was not among them.

Though from what I gathered researching this was pretty much just buying time until a state or federal law comes into effect. Whether or not the derivative law persists beyond April 2011 remains to be seen, but it would be highly unusual to keep something that broad in a controlled substances state law. If other more specific bans prove ineffective in the intervening period but this ban proves effective then maybe they'll make it stick, either by extending the board of pharmacy ban or incorporating a 'catch-all' clause into state law. Time will tell. Hawaii also made reference to the lack of state-level derivative laws and weaknesses of the Federal Analog Act, so it's fair to say broader legislation is being considered to stem the tide of RC products.

I have just uploaded to the archives a document prepared by/for the Oregon Board of Pharmacy covering information of various state actions related to synthetic cannabinoids. Includes many links to state bills. HERE (looking at it I do wonder if they gathered info here)

otice of intent has been filed in the Federal Register. This gives a minimum 30 day window before the one year temporary scheduling takes place. So likely this will kick in around the first of the new year.

It is unclear at this time if they will move to use the Analog Act to prosecute other synthetic cannabinoids not specifically listed here. Time will tell.

Synthetic marijuana products to be banned in state under emergency rules
Board of Pharmacy action follows federal ban >snip<
The federal rules went into effect December 24, 2010. The board voted to classify synthetic marijuana chemicals as Schedule I controlled substances in Washington, which will make them illegal to make, possess, and sell.

While the federal law is already in effect,?? a state rule banning these substances is a more effective tool for law enforcement than federal prohibitions. The board plans to file the rules in January and hopes the ban will serve as a deterrent to synthetic marijuana sales in Washington.

a dog licked me and I suddenly understood what he was saying, he told me that several CITYS in UTAH are banning Spice on the City level. the dog has to drive 20 mins now.. for the shlug you get in smoke shops while the dog waits for his mail orders.

NC HB12 and SB9 are the most comprehensive yet in terms of the drugs it will cover if passed. Interesting that NC is willing to impede research into all these chemical just to try to get spice off the streets.

Here is an excerpt from the NC HB12

---------------------------------------------------------
(6) Synthetic cannabinoids. – Any material, compound, mixture, or preparation
that contains any quantity of the following substances, their salts, isomers
(whether optical, positional, or geometric), homologues, and salts of isomers
and homologues, unless specifically excepted, whenever the existence of
these salts, isomers, homologues, and salts of isomers and homologues is
possible within the specific chemical designation:

a. Naphthoylindoles. Any compound containing a
3-(1-naphthoyl)indole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom
of the indole ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl,
cycloalkylethyl, 1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or
2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group, whether or not further substituted in
the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the
naphthyl ring to any extent. Some trade or other names: JWH-015, JWH-018, JWH-019, JWH-073, JWH-081, JWH-122, JWH-200, JWH-210, JWH-398, AM-2201, WIN 55-212.

b. Naphthylmethylindoles. Any compound containing a
1H-indol-3-yl-(1-naphthyl)methane structure with substitution at the
nitrogen atom of the indole ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl,
cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl,
1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group,
whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and
whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

c. Naphthoylpyrroles. Any compound containing a
3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole structure with substitution at the nitrogen
atom of the pyrrole ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl,
cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl,
1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group
whether or not further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent
and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.
Another name: JWH-307.

d. Naphthylmethylindenes. Any compound containing a
naphthylideneindene structure with substitution at the 3-position of
the indene ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl,
cycloalkylethyl, 1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or
2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group, whether or not further substituted in
the indene ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the
naphthyl ring to any extent.

e. Phenylacetylindoles. Any compound containing a
3-phenylacetylindole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom
of the indole ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl,
cycloalkylethyl, 1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or
2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group whether or not further substituted in
the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the
phenyl ring to any extent. Some trade or other names: SR-18, RCS-8, JWH-250, JWH-203.

f. Cyclohexylphenols. Any compound containing a
2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol structure with substitution at the
5-position of the phenolic ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl,
cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl,
1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group,
whether or not substituted in the cyclohexyl ring to any extent. Some
trade or other names: CP 47,497 (and homologues),
cannabicyclohexanol.

g. Benzoylindoles. Any compound containing a 3-(benzoyl)indole
structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring by
an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl,
1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group,
whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and
whether or not substituted in the phenyl ring to any extent. Some
trade or other names: AM-694, Pravadoline (WIN 48,098), RCS-4.

h. 2,3-Dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1,2,3-de]-1,
4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-1-napthalenylmethanone. Some trade or other
names: WIN 55,212-2.

SECTION 2. G.S. 90-95(h) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:
(2a) Any person who sells, manufactures, delivers, transports, or possesses in excess of 35 grams of a synthetic cannabinoid shall be guilty of a felony,
which felony shall be known as "trafficking in synthetic cannabinoids." The
person shall be punished as a Class F felon and shall be sentenced to a
minimum term of 70 months and a maximum term of 84 months in the
State's prison and shall be fined not less than fifty thousand dollars
($50,000)."

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective April 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

This would be quite a development, as I do not believe any US states have imposed permenant similarly wide-reaching derivative laws to date. The only thing that even comes close is the Oregon Board of Pharmacy placing any "cannabinoid receptor agonist" on an emergency ban until April. It is certainly far more stringent than the restrictions imposed by scheduling a prescribed list of compounds.

This legislation actually looks far more like an expanded version of the UK legislation on synthetic cannabinoids, and I imagine this is what they've largely based it upon. Is this the first time North Carolina has used such wide-acting derivative laws or are drug laws in this state always broad?

It will be interesting to see if other states follow suit either in tackling the cannabinoids or beta-ketones.

Yes, this is the first time I've seen legislation remotely like this in my state. I can't help but wonder, since Huffman lives in Silva, North Carolina, if they didn't "invite" him to participate in the crafting of this legislation. Think about all the researchers at Duke, UNC, NC State, and other colleges and tertiary medical centers whose research will be hampered by making all these compounds schedule I. It set's a very dangerous precedent, IMO.

And if they pass this, it will be a crying shame because it's just going to go underground. And then you don't even get the chance to try to put standards in place, etc. There's a desire, and desires want to be satisfied and typically find a way.

Just for the sake of comparison here is the UK legislation covering synthetic cannabinoids. Note the extreme similarity in wording to that used in the above bill:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Amendment, Order 2009

Any compound structurally derived from 3–(1–naphthoyl)indole or 1H–indol–3–yl–(1–naphthyl)methane by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring by alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

Any compound structurally derived from 3–(1–naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring by alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

Any compound structurally derived from 1–(1–naphthylmethyl)indene by substitution at the 3–position of the indene ring by alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the indene ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

Any compound structurally derived from 3–phenylacetylindole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring with alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the phenyl ring to any extent.

Any compound structurally derived from 2–(3–hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol by substitution at the 5–position of the phenolic ring by alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the cyclohexyl ring to any extent.

The NC legislation plugs two of the most obvious holes in this UK legislation. It adds N-haloalkyl substitutions on the indole ring to the list of controlled derivatives and also covers benzoylindoles. This allows it to also control a majority of AM-x series compounds in addition to "RCS-4" and "RCS-8", as well as a huge theoretical chemical space.

Ratha may well have a point that these holes were plugged using information on this forum, as both these weaknesses in the UK law have been pointed out repeatedly since the UK law change over a year ago. You have to give them some credit though... if the intent is to control all synthetic cannabinoids then this is by far the most effective attempt at legislation of any of the states thus far.

No need to invite Huffman, everything they need is contained on this board, written by people who gleefully discuss/ask how they can get around new bans with new products.

These are new compounds, for the most part un-researched. The data that people share on this site is extremely valuable, and I'm not willing to let The Powers That Be force us to hide and be silent. We have rights.

This listing is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain due to a flurry of legislative activity following the DEA announcing its intention to emergency schedule five synthetic cannabinoids. In addition to more states now actively legislating, the wording of the newer legislation is becoming more elaborate, covering many more compounds than the states that acted early. We are also starting to see states (namely Montana and North Carolina) implementing wide-reaching derivative laws in addition to a prescribed list of controlled compounds.

If you have any information on the progess of state legislation on cannabinoids, please post it here: JWH-x bans, direct links to State Bills. Of particular interest are the house/senate bills references, effective dates of any legislation, and also keeping us updated as and when the bills are passed.

Shit, North Carolina has proposed legislation now? I live in NC and hadn't heard anything about it. I just tried to find some info and found a few news articles. Apparently if it the law is passed, which of course it will be, it's supposed to take effect at the beginning of April. I haven't been able to find any real good information on it, though. You say "wide-reaching derivative laws," which I guess means anything that acts as synthetic marijuana, as opposed to just JWH-018 or a particular chemical???

Like many people, I assumed the ban took effect near the end of December. It wasn't until a couple of weeks ago that I learned otherwise. I've been trying to keep up on the news, but there's so much bad reporting out there that it's tough to learn anything substantial about what's really going on.

From what I understand, though, the DEA may not be able to ban the products because it potentially violates some rule or law that says the DEA can't ban anything that would impact business by over $100 million Right? But I've also read something about how if the benefits to society outweigh the impact on business then the ban can happen anyway, and you know with the way these products have been painted in the media that the DEA would likely win that argument.

I know the RCA (Retail Compliance Alliance) has formed to fight the DEA and is prepared to take them to the Supreme Court, if necessary. People seem to think the ban can still take effect any day, but if they're going to have a potential lawsuit on their hands and if it potentially violates certain rules, is it still possible for them to ban these chemicals/products? Is that why there's been such a delay? I figured maybe that's why so many state governments are taking up the fight because their ruling is final and more concrete than what the DEA can do?

I know that many headshops around here have re-stocked their shelves with the JWH-sprayed products. It seems unlikely that they would do so if they truly felt the ban is going to take effect in the immediate future.

SWIM was under the impression JWH-018 and a few other JWH's are now federally banned? He knows for a fact this is true in Connecticut. After December 25th all the headshops stopped selling blends suspected to contain them such as Black Magic, K2, Voo Doo Remix, Serenity Now etc. Has anyone tried any of the newer legal blends with any good results? What(if any) are the common legal cannabinoids now?

EDIT: But SWIM has not gone to any shops since then so maybe he will have to stop by one and see if they are back in stock? Anyone in CT know if they are back on shelves or not?

As already stated repeatedly throughout this thread and in others the DEA are yet to enact the emergency scheduling on the named five synthetics cannabinoids. With the minimum 30-day consultation period expired the DEA do not need to give any further notice to the public before adding these compounds to Schedule I. Seeing as they could be scheduled at any time, any distributor with half a brain will not be stocking huge amounts of substances containing any of the five cannabinoids.

This might be a dumb question, but are any of the proposed chemicals in the NC laws found in cigerettes? Also, NC has some very large pharmaceutical manufacturing plants as well as Wake, Duke, University of NC Schools, that use research chems in their scientific methodology. Are these banned rc's found in any other product that is being used and sold in the state of NC? Even a trace of these chemicals to make a final product could be catastrophe.

Also, I'm new and I have read the rules, however I have never posted and this is my first posting, reply, etc...so I hope I do not offend anyone because I'm trying to learn how to navigate through this site.

Last edited by Phenoxide; 24-02-2011 at 04:52.
Reason: doublepost removed

I'm curious as to whether or not JWH-5c, 7c, or 9c are included in the proposed NC ban. They are not listed specifically, but the broad nature of the bill has me worried. I am not familiar at all with all the chemistry jargon contained in the bill. (I was a poli-sci major) Any info you could share on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

^^ who knows- as jwh-5c, jwh-7c , and jwh-9c are not real chemicals - these are bogus names created by vendors, so who knows what they actually are? (and it may well be the case of renaming banned substances to clear stock).